From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 17:08:18 GMT
David,
[Scott prev:]> > My objection to Pirsig's response is his treating "an
abstraction" as
> > somehow inferior to "concrete". This is the nominalism of Pirsig that I
> > object to. Basically, Pirsig is adopting the basic nominalist
orientation
> > that the more "sense perceptible" something is, the more real it is, in
> > the style of Dr. Johnson refuting Berkeley by kicking a stone. Now he
(Pirsig}
> > would expand that orientation to argue that "art and morality and even
> > religious mysticism" belong in the concrete, and hence "more real" (and
so
> > distinguishes the MOQ from materialism), but would deny that to
> > "abstraction".
[David:]> I think you are very wrong here. Pirsig is clearly
> saying to treat something as ONLY/exclusively an abstraction is
> inadequate.
And I am saying, why is treating something only/exclusively as an
abstraction considered inadequate? That is, why this presupposition that
abstraction is less important than kickable stones?
Pirsig wants to talk about reality-quality and as soon
> as this happens you have to start using abstract concepts, he knows
> this well, he talks about how SOM cuts things up one way, how this
dominates
> out thinking, and he suggests the MOQ as a different way to analyse our
> experience.
Yes, Pirsig is a nominalist. He sees that "you have to start using abstract
concepts" to "analyse our experience", and worries that in doing we are
somehow stepping back from experience. I say we are simply changing
experience, that using abstract concepts is -- in a way -- moving us closer
to Reality.
> If something is just abstract and has no effect on
> reality-experience-existence why
> would it interest us?
> DQ has to be linked to
> creativity/mysticism/imagination if we
> are going to move from an SQ/DQ distinction to talk about how the two
> interact to produce this existence-world. Whilst I think what you have to
say can add
> to our understanding of the MOQ I do not see that it either goes beyond it
or
> contradicts it, rather it fleshes it out. What do you think abstraction
has to offer us
> that contradicts the MOQ, I can't see it, maybe if we can get to grips
with this I can change
> your mind or you can change mine.
What abstraction has to offer is its primoridal existence. That -- since in
our nominalist age we tend to denigrate abstract ideas in favor of kickable
stones -- we should learn to think in reverse, that stones exist in order to
express ideas, not that ideas exist to describe stones. (Eventually, via the
logic of contradictory identity, this last too needs deconstruction, but one
step at a time.)
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 02 2003 - 17:09:35 GMT